Post a Comment
Well done Apple for giving the other company a chance.. whilst native virtualization in the OS would have been nice, its kinda good to see them acknowledge the job parallels does and are letting them get on with it without getting all paranoid and trying to muscle in of their business .. makes a change these days :-)
As great as VMWare, Parallels, and CrossOver Office are, they aren't perfect. In fact, they have glaring lackings. But for the most part, they get the job done for what you need them for. And that's what's important about them.
If they were too good: if they looked and felt like OS X apps, if they ran as fast and seamlessly as OS X apps, why would any developer create native apps? This virtualization means that I can play Risk or see how my website looks in IE or the like without making it so developers of other apps discontinue Mac support because its no longer needed.
Paralells is excellent!. I'm also using it for Damn Small Linux (lightning fast on my MacBook) and to try out different versions of Ubuntu.
- - -
http://edu.org
From what i read on the Report the one thing that really sticks in my Mind is that apple said they are not interested as Parrelles are doing a good job, to me it seems that as long as Parrelles continue doing a good job of the VM software apple is not interested in wasting R&D on it and would prefer someone else to continue with it, however i get the feeling if the standards drop apple will jump in.
does their stance cover blue pill (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1983037,00.asp)?
if not they really should think about making some virtualization just to protect the os



